Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Antonin Scalia dead
Comments
-
Yep, my inside sources are telling me it's going to be Sri Srinivasan. The icing on the cake is that he's close personal friends with Cruz. tabbing his close friend in the back would even make Cruz more likable.AZDuck said:It will also be fun to see the rightie tighties in the Senate tell us why the guy that just got appointed to the DC Circuit and confirmed by a 97-0 vote is "extreme and unqualified"
KOMO link, buttfuckers! -
You don't actually give Obama the seat. You float rumors that you will. Obama is still very popular among democrats for some reason and that would push turnout in a general election. The argument against is it helps the turnout on the right but those people already had one chance to vote Obama out and failed.PurpleThrobber said:
While that may be a sweatpants boner for some leftists, neither Hilary or Bern are stupid enough to cede power to der Barrack for the remainder of his natural born life.AZDuck said:topdawgnc said:The recess appointment would be best.
Let Obama put his gay male, Arab, or transgender in place.
Then when the new President is elected we can change direction ... Or not
Big turnout usually helps the Dems - minorities, women, helots, ducks. If the Senate holds up Obummer's nominee they hand the Dems an issue for the Senate races - in a year the Dems look to be picking up seats (not an editorial comment - just a favorable map). Give the wimmens and the blicks a reason to show up and it could go very poorly.
Maybe the most chincredible outcome would be for the GOP to stall, Hillary to get elected, and put Obummer on the bench.
I also think you'd see a fucking MELTDOWN in the flyovers if that happened. And those fuckers have a lot of guns and religion and land on which to lay siege.
The other thing it does is put pressure on the right to just take an Obama selection. Is it worth the risk of losing the election and Obama having that seat? -
That's an unbelievably stupid strategy. Nobody would believe for a second that Obama would be a serious suggestion for the SCOTUS seat.allpurpleallgold said:
You don't actually give Obama the seat. You float rumors that you will. Obama is still very popular among democrats for some reason and that would push turnout in a general election. The argument against is it helps the turnout on the right but those people already had one chance to vote Obama out and failed.PurpleThrobber said:
While that may be a sweatpants boner for some leftists, neither Hilary or Bern are stupid enough to cede power to der Barrack for the remainder of his natural born life.AZDuck said:topdawgnc said:The recess appointment would be best.
Let Obama put his gay male, Arab, or transgender in place.
Then when the new President is elected we can change direction ... Or not
Big turnout usually helps the Dems - minorities, women, helots, ducks. If the Senate holds up Obummer's nominee they hand the Dems an issue for the Senate races - in a year the Dems look to be picking up seats (not an editorial comment - just a favorable map). Give the wimmens and the blicks a reason to show up and it could go very poorly.
Maybe the most chincredible outcome would be for the GOP to stall, Hillary to get elected, and put Obummer on the bench.
I also think you'd see a fucking MELTDOWN in the flyovers if that happened. And those fuckers have a lot of guns and religion and land on which to lay siege.
The other thing it does is put pressure on the right to just take an Obama selection. Is it worth the risk of losing the election and Obama having that seat? -
It's a fine suggestion if you want to incite dozens of Malheur County episodes before the election.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's an unbelievably stupid strategy. Nobody would believe for a second that Obama would be a serious suggestion for the SCOTUS seat.allpurpleallgold said:
You don't actually give Obama the seat. You float rumors that you will. Obama is still very popular among democrats for some reason and that would push turnout in a general election. The argument against is it helps the turnout on the right but those people already had one chance to vote Obama out and failed.PurpleThrobber said:
While that may be a sweatpants boner for some leftists, neither Hilary or Bern are stupid enough to cede power to der Barrack for the remainder of his natural born life.AZDuck said:topdawgnc said:The recess appointment would be best.
Let Obama put his gay male, Arab, or transgender in place.
Then when the new President is elected we can change direction ... Or not
Big turnout usually helps the Dems - minorities, women, helots, ducks. If the Senate holds up Obummer's nominee they hand the Dems an issue for the Senate races - in a year the Dems look to be picking up seats (not an editorial comment - just a favorable map). Give the wimmens and the blicks a reason to show up and it could go very poorly.
Maybe the most chincredible outcome would be for the GOP to stall, Hillary to get elected, and put Obummer on the bench.
I also think you'd see a fucking MELTDOWN in the flyovers if that happened. And those fuckers have a lot of guns and religion and land on which to lay siege.
The other thing it does is put pressure on the right to just take an Obama selection. Is it worth the risk of losing the election and Obama having that seat?
-
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me. -
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
If it is Sri, whom the senate confirmed 97-0 for his current position, and the Republicans stonewall this time -- they will look like complete buffoons, which could cost some of them their seats the next time they are up for reelection.bananasnblondes said:
Yep, my inside sources are telling me it's going to be Sri Srinivasan. The icing on the cake is that he's close personal friends with Cruz. tabbing his close friend in the back would even make Cruz more likable.AZDuck said:It will also be fun to see the rightie tighties in the Senate tell us why the guy that just got appointed to the DC Circuit and confirmed by a 97-0 vote is "extreme and unqualified"
KOMO link, buttfuckers!
And if they Republicans do stonewall, then I hope Obama does a recess appointment -- just to say "fuck you" to them. -
Some of you need to learn the definition of advise and consent.
Senate is currently advising Obama not to make a choice and if he does ... They will not consent.
Just following the Schumer Rule of 2007. -
You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so.......................... -
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war.
-
Open wide, then swallow.topdawgnc said:
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war. -
The GOP will lose regardless
Might be time to reconsider what they have been doing, then. Demographically things are only getting worse for them -
Why?topdawgnc said:
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war.
Going to war over transitions of power in the government is exactly what this country is NOT about.
You sound like a partisan fucktard. -
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
I think that's called checks and balances. Reality is, judges shouldn't be liberal or conservative. They should be for the constitution. But we live in a world where 4 judges don't even open obamacare and say it's good. 4 other judges don't even open obamacare and say it's shit. And 1 judge is left to decide the fate of obamacare. And gets shit on because he's supposed to be conservative.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look. -
Agree, but there's no reason electorally for GOP senators to approve a nominee quickly. Maybe this is more prominent in the house with the gerrymandered districts, but still largely applies to the Senate. And yes, it's a massive fecking problem.ThomasFremont said:
Why?topdawgnc said:
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war.
Going to war over transitions of power in the government is exactly what this country is NOT about.
You sound like a partisan fucktard. -
Shut up and read some history, justices have been appointed for "political reasons" for as long as the institution has been around, it's just that the political goals of (white) Americans used to align more closely to each other.2001400ex said:
I think that's called checks and balances. Reality is, judges shouldn't be liberal or conservative. They should be for the constitution. But we live in a world where 4 judges don't even open obamacare and say it's good. 4 other judges don't even open obamacare and say it's shit. And 1 judge is left to decide the fate of obamacare. And gets shit on because he's supposed to be conservative.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
Holy shit that point went right over your head.doogsinparadise said:
Shut up and read some history, justices have been appointed for "political reasons" for as long as the institution has been around, it's just that the political goals of (white) Americans used to align more closely to each other.2001400ex said:
I think that's called checks and balances. Reality is, judges shouldn't be liberal or conservative. They should be for the constitution. But we live in a world where 4 judges don't even open obamacare and say it's good. 4 other judges don't even open obamacare and say it's shit. And 1 judge is left to decide the fate of obamacare. And gets shit on because he's supposed to be conservative.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different... -
Disagree.
-
He has no "Constitutional Duty" to nominate a justice without the Consent and Advice of the Senate.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
Charles Schumer understood that:
"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
As did 1960 Democrats (linked on the college football boreds)
As did the Senate in 1968 with LBJ
The advice of the Senate is to not nominate. If he chooses to, then they will not consent ... as is their "Constitutional Duty".
I am sorry you do not agree with the Constitution, or the mid-term elections of 2014. But as a famous man once said:
Elections have consequences.
I am all in favor of a recess appointment, and I am all in favor of Obama making an appointment. And if he was a smart man he would nominate that Injun, not Swaye, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote.
But there is nothing that says the Senate has to abide.
Reference Bork.
Jesus ... I could go on and on with precedent ... -
Dot not feather.topdawgnc said:
He has no "Constitutional Duty" to nominate a justice without the Consent and Advice of the Senate.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
Charles Schumer understood that:
"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
As did 1960 Democrats (linked on the college football boreds)
As did the Senate in 1968 with LBJ
The advice of the Senate is to not nominate. If he chooses to, then they will not consent ... as is their "Constitutional Duty".
I am sorry you do not agree with the Constitution, or the mid-term elections of 2014. But as a famous man once said:
Elections have consequences.
I am all in favor of a recess appointment, and I am all in favor of Obama making an appointment. And if he was a smart man he would nominate that Injun, not Swaye, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote.
But there is nothing that says the Senate has to abide.
Reference Bork.
Jesus ... I could go on and on with precedent ... -
I am a partisan fucktard. No running from the fact the left scares the shit out of me and I realize ONLY the judicial branch of government makes a long term difference. Bush, Obama, Clinton ... all can be undone. Justices and their rulings are much more difficult to undo.ThomasFremont said:
Why?topdawgnc said:
Some issues are worth going to the mat for.dflea said:You need to learn how looking like a cunt doesn't play well for you if your seat is vulnerable.
If they will not consent on a candidate like Srinivasan, they look like cunts, and their seats become more vulnerable, and risk losing control of the Senate.
Which would be a stupid fucking thing to do - but they are Republicans, so..........................
This is one.
The GOP will lose regardless ... If they buckle they right stays home. Better to go down swinging.
Throw up the mattresses ... Time for war.
Going to war over transitions of power in the government is exactly what this country is NOT about.
You sound like a partisan fucktard.
And I would disagree ... going to war over transitions of power is EXACTLY what this government is about and founded upon.
Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence.
Or read some history on Robert Bork and Clarance Thomas.
Or take a read at what Schumer said about Bush with no open appointment. -
...As we all know, there has been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record... -
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court. -
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.Hippopeteamus said:
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I said he gets to nominate someone. -
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.ThomasFremont said:
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.Hippopeteamus said:
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
-
And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.topdawgnc said:
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.ThomasFremont said:
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.Hippopeteamus said:
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I said he gets to nominate someone. -
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?topdawgnc said:
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.ThomasFremont said:
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.Hippopeteamus said:
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I said he gets to nominate someone. -
To be cunts.ThomasFremont said:
Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?topdawgnc said:
And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.ThomasFremont said:
I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.Hippopeteamus said:
I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.ThomasFremont said:
No. That's not the fucking point.Hippopeteamus said:
No shit. The point is that argument that somehow republicans not accepting Obama's appointments for "political reasons" is going against the constitution is fucking idiotic. It is precisely like saying that Obama nominating liberal judges for "political reasons" is going against the constitution. Neither one is. But just as Obama has the constitutional power to nominate judges he feels as fit for the supreme court, so does the senate have the constitutional power to block those appointments.ThomasFremont said:
Ummm, ya think?Hippopeteamus said:
Huh? The senate is given the power to approve an appointment. Now, they can't make a nomination, but there is nothing in the constitution that they must accept a certain presidents appointments. Now they can't stop Obama from nominating someone, that would be unconstitutional. Obama will make a nomination, as is the power granted to him, and most likely the senate republicans will not approve it, as is the power granted to them. The argument that the senate should confirm "qualified" candidates that a president appoints is entirely subjective and based on how someone defines a candidate as qualified. One could equally say it is the presidents duty to nominate only individuals to the supreme who would interpret the constitution accurately, which most likely Obama is not going to do. Rather he is going to nominate people who he views as politically advantageous to "liberal" causes.AZDuck said:Hippopeteamus said:
DisagreeAZDuck said:
"Advise and CONSENT"
Consent: Give permission for something to happen.
Part of the checks and balances are that the presidential nomination must be approved by the senate. It is not unconstitutional for the senate to not consent to a presidential nomination. I am not sure what reading of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that the senate "must" accept a presidential nominee or ratify (which requires two-thirds majority of the senate) a treaty. The constitution does say that the senate must have "non-political reasons" for disagreeing with an appointment.
If the senate thinks that the president is appointing someone who will not faithfully interpret the constitution, then isn't their duty to deny consent?
Mitch McConnell and the entire GOP presidential field are saying that Obummer shouldn't even nominate a replacement. That's a total revision of the Constitution. HTH
Now I agree that this is very stupid by the republicans and will, quite rightly, hurt them in future elections. But I don't think it is subverting the constitution (certainly not more than roe v wade or the numerous expansion of federal powers through the commerce clause).
Edit:
Of course, who am I to say, as you have at least put your money where your mouth is so to speak by joining the military. So FO, Me.
Next you'll dazzle us by saying a Republican president would nominate a conservative judge.
But that's different...
The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?
Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
I said he gets to nominate someone.
Which Toppy supports.
Because he's a cunt.
